Democrats refuse to pass FISA; House GOP walks out
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Breaking News | Congress | FISA | National Security | Republicans — Comments (195) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Just moments ago, Republican Representatives walked off of the House floor in response to the Democrats' refusal to pass (or even debate) the bipartisan, Senate-passed FISA legislation.
"Meanwhile," according to a source close to the House GOP, "the Democrats are debating the merits of former White House staff."
Video below:
« Toward an Understanding of the Obamian Language — Comments (4) | House Republicans declare a Floor War over FISA — Comments (2) »
Democrats refuse to pass FISA; House GOP walks out 195 Comments (0 topical, 195 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Section 2 of the Protect America Act, which is not affected by the sunset provision:
`ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS CONCERNING PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
`Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States
So this keeps going well into the next administration, even if the law does expire. Expiration doesn't mean that any current order shall end, nor that any new order is prohibited.
That does not seem to impact the stated desire of lefties like you to make sure that people on this end of the conversation are safe from worry.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I'm glad they had the guts to do this.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
....you care to mention that any law that expires can remain in effect for up to 12 months after the law expires? There is no need for the Rs to join Bush in fear mongering. They are above that. America is no more in danger prior to the law expiring as it is after the law expires on Friday or Saturday. Would you also like to mention that the Rs refused to even vote on a 15 day extension for the current law allowing more time to debate?
Lets be fair in who is guilty here. It is not a one-sided affair. Both sides are equally culpable.
by specific example please.
No, there is a perfectly good bill passed out of the Senate.
Only lefty extremists are blocking its being even considered.
The only fault and culpability here is that of dhimmies who are trying to defeat America and help terrorists.
1. Why do we need 15 days - or any days for that matter - for further debate. This subject has been beaten to death for the last year plus.
2. Let's be fair who is guilty. If the US is attacked after this travesty, Nancy and Dem Leadership should be arrested and tried for treason, and hung.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If we are attacked, why bother to waste a rope on the Democrats-just take them out by a military firing squad-it'll be as close as any of them ever get to seeing honorable live combat.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Death by hanging is an ignominius way to go. They should be hung. Unless we can convince someone that "hung, drawn and quartered" would be better.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Althought I'm not sure that they are worth the tiring out of perfectly good horses...
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
I understand that tires no horses and has pretty close to the same result...
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan
If some terrorist steals a plane are they more likely to crash it:
a) into some grain elevator in Montana
b) into Congress
???????
You'd think everybody in Congress would want to do everything possible to stop terrorist plots.
Hubby and co are working hard to make it happen. Lots and lots of people involved with this.
Fox news is reporting he will delay this trip to press Congress. This is big and Bush is not going down without a fight.
As for the House Republicans-good for them. I hope they get used to doing this. If we happen to lose the WH, they are going to have to do this often.
If only the Senate was as admirable, we could really get some things done. BTW, Africa has quietly been W's proudest achievement, just another reasons why he's more worthy of the titel of first Black President than Slick Willy will ever be. Of course when I suggest that in Black circles, people look at me like I've suggested injecting their daughters with HIV.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Big things are planned for that continent and it is a huge emphasis item for Bush.
Beyond that, I better shut up.
It will be fascinating to watch though. Some never before stuff at work.
His inner circles say it is what he is most passionate about, but he does not like to do it with big fanfare, it is another area where his big ol Texan heart shows itself, quiet charity, unlike some people who have to host a press conference and tv show to announce everyhing there doing.....O, you caught me rambling ;-)
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
inject all the black daughters in Africa with AIDS? I knew it was all his fault!!
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I went on a worlwide AIDS Infection Tour, everyone who was Black got it from my vial that George Bush and Dick Cheney gave me from Cheney's evil Halliburton lab that we hide in the stolen Oil Fields in Iraq that we went in to conquer for the Great Empire, America so we could have a place to plot another Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
There was more I wanted to say, but alas, I am on the clock...
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
So much for reaching across the aisle
I value personal freedom and the rule of law higher than the Republicans.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
for at least an honest user name.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Weirdest fetish I've ever seen.
Moe
PS: blam, by the way. You don't get the capital. You have to work for the capital.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Rule of Law, you must have loved Bill Clinton.
Personal freedom, well then I take it your not a Democrat.
So the question is, just what principles are you "higher" for, and compared to what bits of a human slag heap are you higher than? Couldn't be IQ !
Back to the medicine cabinet with you.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
"2. Let's be fair who is guilty. If the US is attacked after this travesty, Nancy and Dem Leadership should be arrested and tried for treason, and hung."
I would like to distance myself from these remarks. Those who would suggest violence for their political opponents have no place in honest, reasoned discourse.
1. "Reply To This" is your friend. Use it.
2. I did not suggest "violence for ... political opponents".
3. I requested that the people blocking this law be brought up on legal charges, as specified in the US Constitution. Please note that I also noted that they should have due process in the form of a trial.
4. I did not, as folks on the lefty sites frequently recommend for GWB, recommend that they should simply be shot.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
at what point to you stop referring to people as merely political opponents and instead as treasonous or as traitors? Albert Hiss wasn't just a political opponent. No, I'm not saying that any particular dem is actively conspiring with the enemy, but how would their actions differ if they were?
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
I meant Alger Hiss. What kind of name is Alger? I did him a favor by messing it up.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
I wouldn't grant the telecoms immunity unless they confessed to what they actually did. That means admitting (among other facts) that they helped the NSA to do massive searches - including domestic only phone calls and web traffic - without warrants and without probable cause. That's the least we would expect if immunity were granted in a court of law - full disclosure.
"[T]hroughout the recent history of federal responses to various liability crises, the pattern has been the same: The elimination of causes of action has always been linked to some kind of quid pro quo, whether it took the form of a guaranteed payment, such as for the 9/11 victims' families, or access to a special court, such as in the case of childhood vaccines. The Black Lung Program and the attempted at instituting an asbestos program are both typical of how the federal government inserts itself into very pedestrian tort litigation by providing immunity from suit with one hand, and compensation to victims with the other.
"Yet to read the newspaper reports of the debate in the Senate over the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), it is as if this familiar, long history of immunity-for-compensation has been forgotten. The Republicans want to add to FISA a provision that would simply wipe away the lawsuits that have already been filed without any compensation at all. The Democrats are crying foul, arguing that this would set a terrible precedent for the future. But it might be worse than that--the Republicans' proposal might actually be unconstitutional.
- Findlaw columnist & Cardozo law school professor Anthony Sebok
Besides, if this Administration had any balls, they'd go after the Saudis (and you don't need to wiretap domestic only phone calls to do that) instead of expanding Executive power in a way that will surely come back to haunt us.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
the Leadership of the Democratic Party is a bigger threat to the nation than the House of Saud.
And GWB should simply pardon the telecoms. Case closed.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I have argued in favor of FISA, but I am against telecom immunity. The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retro-active immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.
What part of "we need the cooperation of the telecoms to make the program work" don't you get?
Are you just ignorant or are you stupid? Those are the only two choices.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
We are a country that is based on the rule of law. If we cannot abide by the constitution and seek immunity for criminal acts that violate constitutional protections we are acting just like liberals who want to bend the amendments anyway they please depending on what they want at a given time.
I prefer to be a consistent conservative even when it is not a political gain for us. We certainly cannot make strict 1st and 2nd amendment arguments when we are bending over to twist the 4th amendment. Being true to your beliefs means taking positions sometimes that hurt politically.
international communications. Period.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Immunity means the telecoms can cooperate without fear of criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits, so we must demand that they make a full admission. That's a very small price to pay for breaking the law.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
That's a nice precedent - we'll just let all future 4th amendment violations go away as long as whoever commits a criminal violation of the amendment simply confesses.
Now that's liberal thinking.
That's not been charged by anybody but trial lawyers in a civil suit.
Your argument is total BS.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If they didn't break any laws then why ask for immunity?
You can go ahead and take the liberal position on this, but no conservative I know wants to toss out immunity for potential law breakers in any circumstance.
...as one big fishing expedition, silly.
Did we somehow miss the nonsense of PlameGate? Or, if you prefer, MonicaGate?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...and I suggest that you take my advice.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
2, No.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
is the ability of the program to exist.
Al Qaeda appreciates all of you lefty wack jobs.
And the argument about your freedoms and liberty being compromised in anyway is a load of used cow food.
They violated the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens, and rightly should be sued and made to pay damages for what they've done.
See, the real reason Bush wants telco immunity so badly he'd veto any FISA without it, even though it'd hamstring law enforcement and make terrorists' lives easier, is because if the lawsuits against the telcos continue, evidence brought up in discovery would implicate the Bush adminstration for ... wait for it ... violating the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens!
Criminal activity in the Bush Administration? Tell me it ain't so!
Come back and ask for it when you start following the fourth amendment. Heck, I wouldn't be so against this idea if there wasn't such a shrieking when the idea of oversight -- or God forbid, an accurate accounting of the wiretaps -- is mentioned. It's not exactly like the computers can't keep the records automatically, and make them available for later review.
Sorry, Mr. President, but this American won't cower under his desk and beg for your protection in exchange for our basic civil rights.
Does anyone here really expect Bush to pull the plug on these wiretaps once the extension expires? After seven years, I think we can safely say that he's not exactly well-known for his strict adherence to the rule of law.
Can I persuade you to jump up and down on the floor, or are you more of a wall-puncher?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I'm already ticked because the Republicans caved. Nobody expects the spineless Democrats to stand up for our Constitution.
to obstruct signals intel on international communications during a time of war.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
It works this way:
1. Soldiers and Marines capture notebooks, lists, cell phones and laptops during raids in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places.
2. Those bits of intel are scrubbed for pin numbers, telephone numbers and any other information.
3. Those numbers are plotted in a matrix to analyze frequency of calling and to create webs of phone calling circles.
4. The matrix is used to tap international calls to gain more intel, and then the process starts all over again.
There is no time and staff for the government to worry about small time drug users and the like. This is serious business. Any evidence gained by these programs of that nature would be thrown out anyway.
And yes, I do trust the folks doing it. Existence requires a certain amount of trust. You balance the risks with the benefits. It's better than being splattered on a wall somewhere by an idiot with a bomb.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
Goldenboy, you don't know the half of it -- and that's not what I am object to! I went over the specifics yesterday, but to recap:
The Ultimate Net Monitoring Tool
Whistle-Blower's Evidence, Uncut
Listen up; Our Rights Are at Risk
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
H.J. Res. 114, October 16, 2002
Senate 77-23
House 296-133
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
The resolution in question was limited to Iraq, specifically enumerated as such with respect to the War Powers Resolution. It certainly include a section suspending civil liberties.
S.J. Res 23, September 14, 2001
Senate 98-0
House 420-1
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!RONPAUL!
You just showed your hand NetRanger-now put on your tinfoil panties and go home.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Ron Paul is a nut case. Government is like a steak: rational people want to trim the excess fat; Paul wants to remove the marbling from the prime rib.
prime rib
I may have to change my dinner plans. It's a good thing my wife likes steak.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
The idea that we have to have court permission to prosecute a war or to gather intel is mentally ill.
You can have FISA but you don't have to strip American's of their liberty to do it!
And what part of domestic only phone calls and communications (between U.S. citizens) do you not understand or respect?
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Read the Fourth Amendment - you can't conduct warrantless searches on U.S. citizens (domestic phone calls and communication) unless you have probable cause. You can not conduct "fishing expeditions" on U.S. citizens just to see what you can find. That's the law
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
It is illegal to search a U.S. citizens communications or records in the hopes of finding incriminating evidence - unless there is probable cause and a warrant. Whether it's motivated over concerns of prescription drug abuse or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the principle is the same. The law is the law.
Rush hammers officials over 'fishing expedition'
WorldNetDaily.com, December 23, 2003Rush Limbaugh used his syndicated radio show today to blast a judge's decision to allow prosecutors to examine his medical records to look for anything that might suggest the talk-show host engaged in illegal "doctor shopping" for prescription painkillers...
"The judge ruled against me on the privacy of my medical records despite the fact that we claim that the prosecution in this case did not follow the law as written by the Florida legislature in securing those medical records," Limbaugh told his listening audience...
Characterizing the action against him as a "fishing expedition," Limbaugh further explained the analogy: "We can cast a wide fishing net, we can stand out there after all these leaks, and we can throw a fishing line out there and we can [say], 'Ooh, let's maybe, maybe we'll find something in Limbaugh's medical records.'"
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Check the history of totalitarian nations - they all begin with collecting privata data of its citizens.
If the 4th amendment means so little - let's just get rid of it in the name of national security.
Really, what does anyone have to fear from the cops breaking and entering anywhere anytime to conduct searches - if you're not a criminal you will have nothing to worry about.
That's two inflammatory posts in a short period of time for you. Sandwich, glass of water, maybe a half hour on the treadmill.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
A very Dadlike thing to say, if I do say so myself. Timeout has become a key punishment, although from the way Anthony howls and pleads, people think I'm hitting him with a switch lol.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
You tools would have been saying to impeach George Washington for using the naitonal army to quell the Whiskey tax rebellion.
We either learn to use information technology as a nation or we perish, becuase the enemies are certianly using it.
You reactionaries, with your delusions of dictatorship behind every move are annoying and shallow.
Yeah, but they weren't democracies like America.
If you oppose unlimited executive data collection without oversight, you're no better than the spineless dems (and by association, terrorists).
...a "special comment" on how the Republicans are allegedly "demagoguing the issue"?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
The current average percentage of moonbats who get it right is somewhere around 36%.
Now zip up your pants and scram.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
They have to get off somehow and no one in the real world will give them the time of day - especially for their little twisted political fetish.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
I'm not going to sellout my liberty. There is simply no Constitutional basis to conduct warrantless searches on citizens without probable cause. Case closed.
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And there's no way you can get me to believe the Democratic Party is a bigger threat to the United States then Saudi Arabia: the transfer of wealth, the destruction of Western culture, the weakening of our economy and our foreign policy -- the Saudis trump the Dems in spades.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Should we have not done the equivalent things in WWII?
The fourth extends to international communications?
The fourth extends to enemy combatants?
Yes, we should not have done the equivalent things in WWII - we shouldn't ever intentionally violate the Fourth Amendment, or the Second Amendment, or the First..
And you seem to miss the point, In addition to spying on enemy combatants and international communications, they also searched the U.S. citizens (estimated 1/2 of all domestic only communication). There is no reason to spy on U.S. citizens without probable cause and without a warrant. It's the Constitution!
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
in the Constitution it says that.
Citizens cannot be prosecuted without warranted evidence.
No one is being taken court by way of this evidence.
If you want America to be safe for spies and terrorists to plan in confidence, wish away. The bad guys appreciate it.
If you think planning for terrorist attacks is a protected part of free speech, then you may be literate but you are still ignorant.
You are an idiot, not to put too fine a point on it.
and now you are boring me.
Paraphrased: "Oh, you must support terrorists killing us."
Bleh.
Frankly, I'd rather not see a government empowered to deem someone a terrorist at whim, and then proceed to act against them without restraint. There needs to be a system that ensures that surveillance powers are not abused, and that the constitutional rights of citizens are looked after. By cutting the judiciary out of the process, the chances that infringements on constitutional liberties will go uncorrected are high, are certain.
Why try to subvert the Constitution?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Concur.
May I add that the contempt proceedings are with merit, and relevant to the surveillance bill that the GOPers are gaming? Why are the Repubs so gung-ho about handing over wide-ranging powers to a government with so many dark clouds hanging over its Justice Dept.?
...the shadows, ready to spring out at a moment's notice to torment the pure souls of progressives with our barbed whips...
[DING!]
Your time is up. Please deposit $5 for the next 5 minutes.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Way to ignore the dilemma, Moe.
Rather than prancing about condemning and teasing, why not reconcile the issue?
The good guys won this one; we're just waiting for Nancy Pelosi to cave. Which she will.
In other words, I'm being dismissive. Because it amuses me to do so.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...I'm going to go play some computer games. The kid's finally napping.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
You're not the one who won, Moe. That was someone else. We'll have to let history decide the "good guys" of it.
And being dismissive of it, well, that answers my question of reconciliation. You'll never have to answer for your foolishness, which is bully for you.
God, I'm feeding a troll on his own board. There's my own foolishness.
:)
Also: I'm mocking you quite cheerfully, and I know that it's natural to want to strike back; but if I catch you directly insulting anybody else here, your account goes away. Savvy?
Next post, please.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I will cheerfully comply to the best of my ability.
Pardon for seeming like a rude guest, but when you DO choose to mock, can you be a little less taunting and a little more engaging? I take it you're the equivalent of a moderator; it's a little odd that a moderator would provoke someone clearly taking the opposition's side on a highly partisan forum.
All that said, defend your position. You got your post probably by being a positively contributing member of the boards, so contribute already. Why give a compromised government unlimited power to intercept communications without including means to prevent or punish abuse?
Thanks.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Since we're on the topic, why does number #89 in this thread get a pass, while my own transgression does not?
It goes directly to the Directors, so no worries there.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
in this are nil.
They are completely without merit.
They are insultingly without merit.
And the dhimmies know it.
If the proceedings settle questions regarding how our democracy should work, they should be welcomed. There's a question about whether or not executive privilege extends as far as the administration says it does. Is it a political witch hunt? Hell yes! That doesn't mean it's unjustified and unsupportable, and that doesn't mean partisanship negates its necessity.
Where's your civic spirit, man?
was answered long ago.
This theater about contempt is simply to entertain the sheep.
The dhimmies know it cannot go anywhere.
Attorney-client privelege and Executive Branch powers are well known and well established and proper. If you were such a constitutional expert, you would know that.
If it does get breeched, the Congress should get ready for congressional staff to get dragged into GJ proceedings to talk about planning and policy and etc.
And you claim to be concerned about our liberties.
Really? When was this particular question settled?
Executive privilege needs to be justified, according to current legal understanding. There isn't a constitutional granting of it either, just one of those "implicit" findings that seem to get lambasted when they're for something unsupported by the right, such as a right to choose.
Miers and Bolten are making the claim of privilege, but they haven't shown for it, and are in direct contempt of Congress for failing to show up when directed by subpoena. They are being held in contempt for a very real transgression that is integral to our government's function.
And you claim to be for the rule of law.
Yet you won't name any.
And even if you did, it still doesn't settle the contempt charges. They refused a congressional order, and Congress is finally following through.
Check this out.
Congress can't do squat, as Clinton pointed out.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070713.html
Please go over here and indicate that you understand, and will comply.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
_________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
I know! Doublethink always seemed like a psychological impossibility, but I never knew I'd have to worry about triplethink until I decided to post here!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I don't consider data mining to be an unreasonable search. It may be useless, counterproductive, or brilliant. But hardly unreasonable. If the company chooses to reveal it's business records to the government, then fine. If you disagree with their business practices, take your business elsewhere.
Further, the CinC has every right, indeed, a duty, to make every effort to determine the clandestine and open intents of the Self-Declared enemies of the Republic, and to protect the Republic as is appropriate. That is a duty sworn upon taking the office. I would consider failure to tap the international communications of suspected terrorists to be a dereliction of that duty.
"The day you think you know it all is the day your trouble starts."
Everyone in the military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
"cause I sorta read the part about "defend(ing) against all enemies, foreign and domestic", as direction to find out what nefarious things they are doing, and to stop them from doing it.
Oddly, it even says domestic here... hmmmmmm
"The day you think you know it all is the day your trouble starts."
The solider swears to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic AND to bear true faith and allegiance to the [Constitution] - that means operating within the law.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
to link the unpopular democratic congress to the democratic candidate much in the same way the democrats linked the Republican congress to the unpopular Republican president.
These kinds of statements should have been made long ago, before the country was lulled into mythology land by the press.
The walk-out is a signal to call conservative activists and concerned folk that the democrats cannot be allowed to change the subject.
This is a national security election, and we can't let that be forgotten from now to November.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
That linkage strategy backfired on the Democrats with the "obstructionist" charges laid on them during the 2000-2004 elections. And let's face it, the Republicans have already jumped past the 2-year record for filibusters in one year. That's a lot of ammunition in the general election.
The national security strategy would be more effective -- I'd keep away from criticizing Congress.
It's really our best shot if done well. Obama can be painted as the do-nothing equivocator from a do-nothing and unpopular equivocating congress only interested in witch hunts and pointless "make a statement" legislation.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
Suppose there's another attack. Trust me, Republicans won't be caught with their pants down.
Let's face it, Democrats are opposing FISA because Bush is proposing it. Were Hillary proposing the same bill (which she probably would, only with some riders to make sure that her domestic opponents were monitored), the Democrats would be all for this bill.
Two words, my friend: "Jesus wept."
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
With illegal domestic spy programs without oversight you don't need riders to watch your domestic opponents.
Also: FISA does not expire! The surveillance portion of the PAA does not expire! Our government can still wiretap anybody without a warrant for a few days (or maybe a year, I think PAA updated it) and then obtain warrants after the fact!
I know some people here are praying for a terrorist attack to prove the Democrats wrong. If only we had another 9/11 to keep the population in check.
that is the most jack-asinine statements we've had here in quite some time.
I know some people here are praying for a terrorist attack to prove the Democrats wrong. If only we had another 9/11 to keep the population in check.
We are HOPING for a successful terrorist attack? You need a LONG timeout.
I would call you human debris, but in your case that would be a compliment.
No different than accusing the entire Democratic party of actively helping the terrorist. Pot, meet kettle.
That's the guy who claimed we needed another attack.
And it was PNAC that wanted another Pearl Harbor.
So I'm not entirely insane.
I also realize you may not have specifically accused the Dems of being terrorists in disguise, but it's viewpoint commonly espoused on this site, and of comparable asininity.
Bye.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
from imposing defeat is quite honorable.
And yo uneed to slink back to Kosland or the Paultards or wherever the heck you are from.
Barack will not be allowed to glaze over his "present" votes and his opposition to the FISA bill. McCain and the House Republicans will wrap it about his neck.
Even better should Hillary be the nominee, an eventuality which grows increasingly in doubt, but one I do not rule out.
Democrats expected the Republican Party to run away from the War. Bad guess. McCain will not only embrace the War, but run on Victory vs. Defeat.
That's never a bad formula to take to the nation.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
sort of. But we have never gone for change for the sake of change.
Americans hate defeat. A lot.
McCain offers victory and a change in the staus quo that makes sense.
What change in the status quo? He's no maverick, he largely supports the reckless foreign and economic policies of the current administration, and he's part and parcel to a Congress that ceded its responsibility to hold the executive branch in check. He's going to do NOTHING that changes the course America has taken, and he hasn't got the chops to come up with new solutions to pressing political, environmental, and economic issues.
The only reason he is even supported on the right is that he represents the only possibility of retaining executive power come November.
Just wondering?
McCain is the only Conservative concerned with AGW.
McCain has take stands very much for change in terms of budget process that are very much counter to a lot of conservative consensus.
McCain on immigration is very much out of the conservative maninstream.
McCain is the one who lobbied for the Surge years before it was cool.
You sound more and more like someone who does not only not get it, but has no intention of getting it.
Didn't you just prove his point? McCain is anathema to much of the conservative party, to the extent that Christian leaders are considering staying home come November. He is winning the primary by default as the only Republican to have a good chance at beating Clinton.
*McCain is the only Conservative concerned with AGW.
Acronyms confuse me, as I am not a native RScritter. Attorney General Wrangling? Adverse Golfing Weather? Advisements about Growing Wheat?
*McCain has take stands very much for change in terms of budget process that are very much counter to a lot of conservative consensus.
Good for him. But as president he would relinquish a lot of the control over the details, and could only sign off on a final product.
*McCain on immigration is very much out of the conservative maninstream.
That's not a recipe for change, that's a merely a strategy for winning the general election. The majority of Americans prefer a softer method than wall+deport.
*McCain is the one who lobbied for the Surge years before it was cool.
That's not a point in his favor. The surge was not sustainable, it was the best of options that the administration was going to approve, and prolonging the war is exactly the same thing Bush is doing.
Very little of this spells out change. The change America wants is one where there's a little less rancor in our national dialog, and immediate action to address the issues that we're facing. McCain does not show the optimism that the problems can be solved, and he hasn't taken a bold enough stance against Bush policies that indicates he intends to correct this nation's course.
How is that change?
already know more about me than you're going to get from tapping calls from Thailand to my family! Don't even get me started on who has access to my credit report- FISA! Get real, unless you a terrorist, drug dealer, or complete moron this is no big deal.
________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
I'm more than a little amused to see opposing argument made by a proponent of the immunity. At what point did the party of limited government decide that one branch has the authority, know-how, and honesty to target, collect, and collate data that includes US citizens without probable cause or a warrant? Do you really think that any administration that follows the current one can be trusted with this power? I admit that Cointelpro was a different program in many respects, but the arguments I read here could have been very easily modified to support J. Edgar's shenanigans.
Do YOU want to surrender to Communism? If you're not a Communist you have NOTHING to fear! Tell that to MLK, who was watched by the FBI because the feds thought, incorrectly, that he had ties with our enemies. This is precisely my point. I do not trust this administration, or any OTHER administration (past or potential) with the power to determine without oversight what is, and is not, within their own power. Even during wartime there is (admittedly limited) oversight. Some of the worst over-reaches have been deeply regretted after the fact.
I have yet to be convinced that this program is even necessary, as currently constituted, to keep us safe. Perhaps someone can articulate why a warrant being issued after the fact is too damned hard to get? If the information that leads up to surveilance is anything more than a hunch, then we should be able to involve appropriate oversight (even, again, after the fact).
Or do the bulk of you guys supporting the immunity think that there is no need for the other two branches to get involved at any level, at any time? Do you trust this government (I do not mean this administration in particular) with this power? An open-ended conflict with no obvious line to specify victory, with axiomatic broadened executive powers is the way to do this?
I do not consider this a left or right question. This is far more fundamental than mere tribalism, of which we are all guilty from time to time.
I do not refuse to wear my seatbelt because it may jam and trap me in a car fire or a Kennedy dive, just as I will not refuse the government the tools it needs to do its job (one of the few I think it is uniquely qualified to accomplish).
________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
These intel programs have been fully disclosed to Congress from day one, as well as to the FISA Court. The dhimmies are deliberately pretending otherwise. what the pro-terrorist part of the party wants, like we see from the twits posting here, is full disclosure of our intel secrets, a la NYT, to make sure America is safe for terrorists.
But then if you are not simply a reactionary, you would know that.
It's all they have left.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
First, my objections are not from a pro-terrorist position (checkout my blog: http://wahaudi.blogspot.com). Second, I want FISA fixed not rejected. Third, protection of U.S. citizens also includes having a government that respects the Fourth Amendment.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
The issue is entirely about immunity. Laws were broken (rightly or wrongly) and some people are upset about this fact.
If this data mining is so essential to our safety (there are many who would argue against that fact) then why not pass a law to make it legal? Republicans had six years of uncontested control over Congress to pass it and yet did not.
As an aside, anyone who calls an entire segment of the American population "pro-terrorist" seems little better than 9/11 conspiracy nuts. It seems inflammatory and counterproductive.
Also, a nice bit of fiction to read on this topic is Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge. He supposes that at some point privacy will become a relic of the past after home-brewed bioterrorism causes massive damage. I am interested in the move to a post-privacy society, so long as the lack of privacy is evenly distributed (to eliminate the "watcher" conundrum).
part where the dems agreed to unanimous consent on passage of the FISA bill during the 108th or the 109th Congress.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
There were enough opportunities to expand surveillance in other bills, I certainly don't recall any substantive discussion on the issue.
Even now Dems will modify FISA, but there is a lot of opposition to retroactive immunity. That is the sticking point, not the authorization of new broad surveillance powers.
Had Bush called for emergency surveillance powers and had it rubberstamped by a Republican Congress this wouldn't be an issue now. Dems have proven their lack of fortitude time and again, they most certainly would not have stood up against Bush back in '02 or '03.
You're a complete moron if you are so unconcerned about your privacy that you let your personal information out for all to see.
Do we really need to debunk that old "If you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to hide" argument again? Redstate is usually pretty rational but the willful ignorance being displayed toward this privacy issue is reaching Freeper levels.
I'd rather fight some scary brown people than a nameless, faceless, top-secret, data-mining, i-don't-even-know what any day.
That we disagree doesn't make one of us a bad person, it makes us both Americans. When they come to take our guns away, you won't care that I'm the "liberal."
_________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
go go Google and do a search on NSA and data mining. You can find pages that list the words, phrases, names and even voices that trigger the data mining computers to spit you out.
Then you can just learn to talk carefully.
The credit report deal makes me crazy!
We had a lock on ours until 2005 due to fraud and need to reinstitute it, but I'm sure some still get it anyway.
If they'd take out the retroactive immunity provision. This government has no right to spy on people or prosecute people without making that information available for public oversight.
If the "brave" telecom industry "volunteered" to help the government, why did they cut them off when the FBI forgot to pay the bill? Its a crock of s*** and AT&T ought to be put out of business for abusing its power over its customers' privacy.
Ben Franklin would be ashamed.
That we disagree doesn't make one of us a bad person, it makes us both Americans. When we're side by side as they come to take our guns away, you won't care that I'm a "liberal."
Would you prefer another 9/11?
Too much rational thought makes you a terrorist, and that gets you banned.
I thought FISA was fine before 9/11, to be honest. Maybe it needed some updating in language to include emerging technologies, but a warrant within 72 hours of commencing a surveillance operation involving a citizen is not an onerous burden.
It's not like 9/11 happened because we couldn't get authorization at the drop of the hat. Most of the conspirators were already on watchlists and under surveillance. It was a lack of basic governmental coordination and executive will that caused that failure.
It's not like capitulating to every Bush request for more power won the GWOT either.
Oh yeah, that's my Congressman. I'm glad to see that Boehner taking a big leadership role on this issue. Can't wait to vote for him again this year...
searches, and I daresay, the Fourth Amendment for quite a few years. They also know and acknowledge the possibility of non-foreign agents acting in behalf of foreign powers or terrorist organizations , as well as cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence .
Those who think only they are aware of the Fourth Amendment and also know past doubt that our very breathing at night is being listened to by Fed thugs may want to spend some time reading the opinion of the U S Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review's opinion on such matters, dtd 11/18/02.
I'd help you but after perusing the comments of our "summer" civil libertarians a little work may take their minds off their fears. Still, I doubt it will do any good.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
The risk of death at the hands of evil men is frankly a risk I'm willing to accept to live in a free society. You guys honestly don't get it. Al Qaeda is not, and has never been, an existential threat. As compared with the great wars (cold and hot) and our opponents in them, the fact that a few dozen highly dedicated monsters could get as lucky as they did, well, it is NOT an existential threat!
I'm not concerned with an actual jihad in the United States. Anybody who is needs to take a deep breath. I'm not suggesting a lack of vigilance, or that this problem isn't serious. What I am saying is that this country has been blessedly remote from problems such as this in most of our history. The fact that we'd so willingly over-react, both at home and abroad worries me.
I've got better odds of being killed for my wallet than for my unwillingness to pray to Mecca several times a day. Guess what? I don't want surveillance cameras all over town like they've got in London. Oh, wait, if I'm doing nothing wrong then I shouldn't worry about being watched whenever I'm out in public.
The logic that permits this sort of program can be easily applied to any number of other intrusions. I'll take the risk that living in a free country I might die at the hands of a monster. It's a high price, but I pay it gladly. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.
Some of you would rather scramble madly to see to our safety, irrespective of the costs, or the second and third order effects. We lost three thousand people six years ago. It was a horrible day, it really was. A pain and shock the likes of which we've never known, and hopefully never will again. But that absolutely does NOT justify any and all possible responses to it. Power was divided by the framers of the Constitution for a reason. Congress gets to declare war for a reason! The executive branch should not be able to declare when it gets its war powers. Congress authorized force, but it abrogated its responsibility to define that status such that we'll be able to identify when it's over.
Al Qaeda is not, and has never been, an existential threat.
Right! There are a little more than 3000 people who MIGHT disagree with you, if there were still alive.
It was a horrible day, it really was. A pain and shock the likes of which we've never known, and hopefully never will again.
You go on Hoping -- there are a couple of candidates basing their campaigns on HOPE -- we'll stick with vigilance.
Congress DID declare war. Congress passed a resolution that stated that THEY AUTHORIZED the President to use any force necessary. Since the President is Commander in Chief of the military, THAT is a declaration of war. The Constitution says congress shall declare war. It does NOT state exactly how that declaration is to be worded. When congress authorized the president to act -- that was a declaration of war.
"Right! There are a little more than 3000 people who MIGHT disagree with you, if there were still alive."
This republic can survive the loss of 3000 of its citizens. It has survived far worse. Seriously, way to completely miss the point of the phrase "existential threat."
We're not going anywhere as a nation because those monsters managed to kill 3000 civilians and level a pair of skyscrapers. We're tougher than that, and far more resilient. Seriously, THIS is all it takes for us to fundamentally change how we view our relationship with government?
how very egalitarian of you. It is ONLY YOU who has "fundamentally change[d] how we view our relationship with government."
Then again, that is probably not true either. YOU view your government as the enemy. You take the RonPaul™ attitude that this government is malevolent and evil.
I take the attitude that this government is too bureaucratic and liberal, and needs to be reduced.
You, no doubt suspect that George Bush probably set the charges himself that brought down the twin towers -- fire cannot melt steel -- and want to bring the troops ALL home.
I think I have figured it out around here today. All the Paultards have returned and are spewing claptrap since their mentor has now dropped out.
On 9/11 he missed being in his office when the Towers were attacked by a matter of minutes. Which means that he almost became one of those casualties you'd find more acceptable than having a government computer program troll your overseas calls for terrorist trigger words.
Get the Hell off of our website.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
= a "fundamental" change in the way we view our relationship with governemnt, ReaperO, dauntus and moderich.
Then your precious civil liberties absolutism would be worth a hill of beans next to the outcry that would come for a nanny state.
Police search students' lockers by the hundreds every day in this country without a 72 hour approval process for each one.
Thousands of people are searched at the gates of sporting events, airports and other public places without 72 hours approval process for each one.
Thousands drive by ATM's, go into convenience stores, walk through malls being filmed without warrants for each occassion.
The test is one of reasonableness. In an age of mass communications and a real and established, let me repeat ESTABLISHED, threat by sleeper cells and loosely configured networks who use phones to coordinate violent attacks, it is perfectly REASONABLE to listen in on suspect calls.
If you want to end up living in Road Warrior land because your international communications are so earth shatteringly secretive, then move to one of the many places in the world that are lawless and violent and raise carrier pidgeons.
This kind of absolutism is the luxury of the fat and safe and wealthy and protected.
Get real. 3000 Americans murdered on their way to work is NOT acceptable and never will be.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
on the left with your sincere lies about privacy and and the 4th are not worth a bucket of used cow food.
It is not a matter of selling rights for safety.
It is a matter of fighting a war and winning.
And your sanctimony that you are somehow defending our freedom by leaving us vulnerable to those who chose to war with us is not rational, not sincere and is transparently nihilistic.
That you self-loathing rats think you have the moral high ground in this issue only shows your utter worthlessness.
why the telecom companies should be given a pass after they violated Americans' Fourth Amendment rights and helped the government eavesdrop on their conversations without a warrant? Why shouldn't they be taken to the cleaners after committing felonies and violating the privacy of citizens?
Oh, and what's the worst case scenario if FISA expires?
Oh yeah, the feds would actually have to go get a real warrant from a real judge before they could wiretap Americans' phone conversations or snoop on their Internet traffic.
I fail to see a downside to this.
Why are you opposed to having law enforcement establish probable cause and get a warrant before performing wiretaps or sniffing Internet traffic?
Scroll up and read my post.
The test is REASONABLENESS. No warrant is required for a REASONABLE search.
If someone wants to test FISA in court, and the Supreme Court rules that such searches require a warrant, then the Bill of Rights will come into play.
The old FISA law was limited to actual wiretapping in the 1970's during the Cold War when the government was trying to root out moles and the like.
Signals intelligence is a completely different ball game. The consititution clearly gives to the Executive the right to conduct signals intel and other actions to protect America in the international arena.
The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with it.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
for the NSA to take a room in one of AT&T's facilities, hook up their equipment to their trunk lines, with AT&T assistance, and start recording every single phone conversation, and data mine all internet traffic, American or foreign, that passes through that facility?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
Y'know, maybe you should realize that the book 1984 was not meant to be used as a how-to manual.
And you might want to look at EFF's website to get specific information on plaintiffs that were provably illegally wiretapped by the NSA.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
n/t
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
bleat about how American rights have been violated. YET, you cannot produce a single person who HAS ACTUALLY HAD HIS RIGHTS VIOLATED.
Repeating the same tired BDS mantra over and over might be good for your blood pressute, but it does NOT make it fact.
is that many of these "so called" 4th Amendment hawks seem to be using some kind of recording and data mining operation. Any time a website sneezes the phrase FISA they come out of the wood works.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
Freedom and Liberty are not free. Never have been. You say you want the "rule of law" but what laws are then acceptable? Every law intrudes in some way on your "rights."
You want to live an individualist, anarchist lifestyle - go live in the wilderness and commune with the buzzards.
If you're making overseas (or even domestic) calls to a number connected with a terrorist, suspected terrorist, terrorist financier or other, I don't just want the government listening or mining the data for links, I want them on your doorstep the second you hand up.
Your "rights" don't trump my right or my family's right to live.
R.J.
If the paultards think it is their right to parley with the enemy when as and if they choose, they are part of the enemy and need to be treated as such.
How I wish this conversation was taking place in just about any war in our history. The contrast with today might even inform them.
These poultroonish useless bumps on logs would be off to jail so fast their heads would spin.
I don't know if it is their historical illiteracy or hatred of the country or pure irresponsibility that drives them, and I no longer care.
Perhaps if you would actually my posts you wouldn't insult me by insinuating that I will protect the enemy. I have no problems with wiretaps on international calls, domestic-to-international calls, calls involving foreign agents, calls to those who may be working for foreign agents, or calls by or to U.S. citizens who communicate with suspects.
How many times I have to go over the same ground before you understand?
I oppose government surveillance of domestic-to-domestic communications on U.S. citizens when 1) there is no probable cause, 2) there is no warrant, 3) the objective is a "fishing expedition" - just to see what they can find.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
If there is even more proof of just how out of touch the Dems are then this is it. The law expires at midnight on Saturday and yet they can dilly dally on everything for props of their radical element to their party.
All the Dens care about is weakening the US ability to protect itself and its citizens and yet if God forbid another 9/11 were to happen these would be the first to complain the gov't didn't do enough and worse it was an inside job.
and blast the bas*ards.
Also, if they allow the law to expire can he issue and Executive Order of somesort or act as CinC and refuse to abandon the existing program on "national security in wartime" grounds?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.